2014 (4) TMI 797 - AT - Central Excise

Applicability of Notification No. 108/95 - Supply made to United Nations or International Organizations working under them - Held that - there is no dispute of supply of goods to M/s. UNICEF or issuance of certificate. The dispute is that the certificate is in the name of sister concern who was also supplying the goods to the appellant. The appellant s contention is that such certificate was produced before the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. In absence of any challenge to the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) we agree with the learned Advocate that substantial benefit should be extended to them - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of Notification No. 108/95 for exemption of supplies made to United Nations or International Organizations based on the certificate produced, validity of certificate not being in the name of the appellant, interpretation of essential conditions of the notification, adherence to the certificate requirements, dispute regarding the certificate issued in the name of a sister concern, consideration of earlier order-in-appeal, and the decision on extending the benefit to the appellant.

Analysis:
The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the applicability of Notification No. 108/95, which exempts supplies made to United Nations or International Organizations, subject to a certificate produced by the appellants from UNICEF confirming that the goods are intended for such use. The period involved is April 2002, during which the appellants produced a certificate from M/s. UNICEF, although it was issued in the name of M/s. Serval Electronics Pvt. Ltd. This led the Revenue to raise demands and penalties, contending that the condition of the notification was not fulfilled due to the certificate not being in the appellant's name.

An important aspect highlighted is an earlier order-in-appeal dated 3-11-2006, where the Appellate Authority observed that since the goods were supplied to UNICEF and the certificates were issued wrongly in the name of a sister concern who also supplied goods to UNICEF, the substantial condition of the notification was met. Notably, this order was not appealed against by the Revenue, adding weight to the appellant's argument.

The Revenue stressed the strict adherence to the essential conditions of the notification, emphasizing that the certificate should be in the name of UNICEF to be considered valid. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the earlier order-in-appeal and finding no dispute regarding the supply of goods or the issuance of certificates, agreed with the appellant's position. The Tribunal concluded that the substantial benefit should be extended to the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of interpreting the conditions of notifications meticulously, considering the practical implications and the substance of compliance rather than mere technicalities. The decision also highlights the significance of consistency in legal interpretations and the weight given to earlier unchallenged orders in similar matters.